irst, Familiars and Bonded Items are a disadvantage now? When did this happen?
Second, high Cha isn't an advantage because sorcerers don't specifically have it. It just benefits the class to have it. Likewise, wizards' high Int scores aren't inherent, just a common trait.
And to quote Gamers: Dorkness Rising..."Charisma? Wheeee!" :P
A high Int is, in my opinion, more fun to roleplay than a high Cha. In fact, A low Cha is pretty fun to play. Take a look at my PbP characters, and you'll see I love playing socially clueless people.
Besides which, Int is usually more useful than Cha, because it takes more work on the player's part to use it than Int does.
Familiars and Bonded Items are a two-part weakness in the Wizard class, in that Bonded Items screw the Wizard over if he doesn't have the item at-hand, necessitating a DC 20 + Spell Level for each spell he casts, wherein the Familiar is less so of a potential 'game-boss weak-point' in that killing it cripples the caster, the loss of a Familiar still removes a portion of the Wizard's power, preventing him from the Alertness feat, the ability to deliver ranged touch attack spells, the simple comfort of a loyal companion in troubling times.
That said I love the Bonded Item for making a Wizard very 'ritualized' in that their Bonded Item is their link to the mystical forces of the universe, something they are weakened without like Sauron without his One Ring or any other high-fantasy Wizard who depends upon a mystical item to empower them/protect them/enslave demi-gods/etc. Back in 3.5 the easiest way for the DM to screw the Wizard over if the Player was doing too well and was threatening to derail the campaign with canny spell-use was to take pot-shots at his familiar and watch the cold, calculating genius turn into a shrieking mess as he bundled up his Familiar and took off as fast as his skinny little legs could carry him.
And no, I never did that intentionally to my players. Don't look at me like that!
And yes, I to love high intelligence characters. Just because you have Int 14 doesn't mean you went to an Academy or recieved the best home tutoring. You could just have a naturally sharp mind or a talent for picking up skills as you go through life. You could have almost no perception or common sense (Wisdom) and be about as personable as a rock (Charisma) but a high Intelligence can lead to all sorts of fun situations. Although before the Blazing Trolls descend upon my head, any high ability score can be fun. High Charisma no longer denotes being beautiful, something I really like, but it is described as the 'Force of Personality', and a High Charisma PC can make a room stop and stare just by walking into a room, with their inherent magnetism. Alternatively a High Charisma could be the biggest shut-in in town, but is also a strong personality and could probably do a great many things if pushed to do so.
|
My apoligies
I had no idea that LT was not asking a question about RAW from a published setting, but was instead asking for advice on his/her homebrew campaign setting. Please provide a frame of refrence for future questions.
So again my apoligies as i thought i was in the Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion not the homebrew section.
Have fun oute there and good luck
Except that it's not about LT's home brew...
This is the general discussion board, about a general discussion about sorcerer vs wizard and LT made the bold assertion that sorcerers are stronger...not stronger in my homebrew game...but by RAW in your average game stronger.
Ah, my mistake, I misread the PRD. No need to get snippy, though.Hmm, my apparently-defective core rulebook says I do get Intimidate as a class skill.
Oh, wait. The sorcerer doesn't have Diplomacy or Intimidate as class skills.
Genuinely sorry. I intended the remark in a more playful tone. I don't expect anyone to be able to recite all the rules off the cuff.
I kind of think it's funny to ask besides bloodlines what does the sorcerer bring to the table, that seems to me at least
(and their is no disrespect intended here) like saying "what does the barbarian bring to the table besides rage?" it's cutting out a class feature that defines a class. I definitely agree that the Wizard has more going for him/her/it but I think the Sorcerer has their perks too.
For instance just how water tight is mr. wizards spellbook pouch? If I lived in this world and knew a thing or two about these people I know I would get rid of every book I could when faced with an adversary or holding them in custody.
I really enjoy the different bloodlines they are to me a very welcome addition (even if they are a bit weak in places) they not only allow for great roleplaying opportunities but some great things that actually can't be done by a wizard: use a class ability to heal teammates, summon double the normal amount of creatures, use druid spells (some anyway) mind control undead, etc. are they huge game changers? not really are they fun quirky, tiny advantages in certain situations that just could save the day? sure! but that is just my opinion on the matter everyone has preferences that are equal in validity. Just have fun! Like mama always told you if it aint fun your doing it wrong! :P
As I stated elsewhere, it's a bit of a dumb conversation, because while the sorcerer may be less "powerful" then the wizard, they're still a full casting class. The wizard just gets to add a "+1" to sorcerer's "infinity"
|
|
The sorcerer is the weaker caster, not that that means it is weak. I doubt most people are wrong about how to play it. Would you like to enlighten on the common misconceptions about how to play it?People tend to play it as a wizard. They try to figure out the 'best' spell list, etc.
Sorcerers are best built with a theme and trying to address not only a concept but intertwining everything together at once.
At least that's my experience with them, both good and bad.
-James
The most effective sorcerers are build like wizards with the creme of the crop spell selections.
The most fun sorcerers are made with a concept and having everything built around that concept.
I tend to play my sorcerers like the first as we tend to play very much by RAW and in games that are more difficult then the APs. So yeah, we're optimized cheese monkies usually. Course that does beg the question of why not just use a wizard...and the answer is we usually just do (but we play sorcerers too for variety sake). However for con games or APs, I play the latter...as well they are more fun :) .
Would you mind showing us your optimal sorcerer? There have been many such requests, and since we're all so ignorant and hive-minded, then it would be best that you show us how it is done.
What "standard assumption" am I throwing to the wind? Roles aren't standard assumptions. They are very new to the game and hardly widespread at that. The idea that every class must be pushed someone into a variant of the of the four classes (rogue, fighter, magic user, cleric) has also only been around for a short time and is, again, hardly "standard".Not to mention the fact that this conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Seems that you just saw the trhead title and assumed it was another thread for a CoW (Can of Worms: Dungeon's next adventure path?). You guys put Flame Troll and Threadjack to shame. :P
She got rid of paladins when she toss out all of that pesky alignment stuff, and her campaign setting doesn't have entertainers, so there went all the bards.See Sorcerer's are the only charisma based caster....
Actually, my point as completely relevant to the discussion.
LT is playing in a campaign world where many if not all of the standard assumptions about the game a thrown to the wind. Thus, everything she has to say should be prefaced with "Well, in my homebrew campaign world...."
As stated earlier in the thread, when every encounter happens on the fly, no one is every allowed to craft anything, etc... The balance shifts towards the sorcerer.
In 3.5/pathfinder that is the standard. You can check the WoTC boards for any threads that have not been deleted to confirm that. Some might be on Enworld also.
Is there some kind of error on the forums? It says there are new posts to this thread since wraithstrike's but I can't see them.
Is there some kind of error on the forums? It says there are new posts to this thread since wraithstrike's but I can't see them.
When people begin typing it counts the post as new. When the person submits the post it becomes viewable.
Would you mind showing us your optimal sorcerer? There have been many such requests, and since we're all so ignorant and hive-minded, then it would be best that you show us how it is done.Likewise, I have requested of you all to provide an example wizard which matches a small set of requirements listed earlier in order to draw a realistic assumption.
As soon as you do so, I'll provide an example sorcerer following the same set of requirements and we can do a comparison.
The only thing you have been arguing was the UMD and Leadership thing. That was taken care of earlier.
In 4E, roles are standard assumptions. In 3X they aren't. I don't think the word "role" (as used in this context) even exists anywhere in the core three books of 3X or any previous edition.In 3.5/pathfinder that is the standard. You can check the WoTC boards for any threads that have not been deleted to confirm that. Some might be on Enworld also.What "standard assumption" am I throwing to the wind? Roles aren't standard assumptions. They are very new to the game and hardly widespread at that. The idea that every class must be pushed someone into a variant of the of the four classes (rogue, fighter, magic user, cleric) has also only been around for a short time and is, again, hardly "standard".Not to mention the fact that this conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic. Seems that you just saw the trhead title and assumed it was another thread for a CoW (Can of Worms: Dungeon's next adventure path?). You guys put Flame Troll and Threadjack to shame. :P
She got rid of paladins when she toss out all of that pesky alignment stuff, and her campaign setting doesn't have entertainers, so there went all the bards.See Sorcerer's are the only charisma based caster....
Actually, my point as completely relevant to the discussion.
LT is playing in a campaign world where many if not all of the standard assumptions about the game a thrown to the wind. Thus, everything she has to say should be prefaced with "Well, in my homebrew campaign world...."
As stated earlier in the thread, when every encounter happens on the fly, no one is every allowed to craft anything, etc... The balance shifts towards the sorcerer.
4E classifies classes by roles, and 3E is made so that certain responsibilities have to be covered. You don't have to use the word role, but the concept is not new at all.
So basically this thread can be summarised: LilithsThrall asserts something is true and refuses to prove it until people concede to unrealistic demands.
We may do better discussing this amongst ourselves and resisting any urge to reply to LilithsThrall's posts.
So basically this thread can be summarised: LilithsThrall asserts something is true and refuses to prove it until people concede to unrealistic demands.
We may do better discussing this amongst ourselves and resisting any urge to reply to LilithsThrall's posts.
I'm not the one who made the first assertion. Others asserted that the Wizard is more powerful than the Sorcerer - and have consistently failed to prove it.
I'm saying "put up or shut up". Put example wizard characters down and we'll do a comparison to see if the Sorcerer really is so much weaker.
If I just put an example Sorcerer down and there's nothing to compare it to, that proves nothing.
You have yet to set down what you count as better, which I asked for a long time ago. If we can't agree on better it will just be another pointless debate.
What "standard assumption" am I throwing to the wind? Roles aren't standard assumptions. They are very new to the game and hardly widespread at that. The idea that every class must be pushed someone into a variant of the of the four classes (rogue, fighter, magic user, cleric) has also only been around for a short time and is, again, hardly "standard".
Erm... the classic four have been around since Gygax?
OTOH, I've been Bard-tank, and ATM I'm Barding main heals at my table. (Everyone else is a meat-shield or glorified pickpocket. And one warlock. <facepalm>)
I'm a bit confused about the emphasis on UMD. Are you using it so your Sorcerer can use Cleric / Druid items, or is it because it uses the Charisma bonus?
Is there some kind of error on the forums? It says there are new posts to this thread since wraithstrike's but I can't see them.
Given the rage flying around I'd say the Mods are carefully screening comments before allowing them to be viewed.
And no, Lilith, you're the one standing there shouting that nobody is optimizing their Sorcerer correctly and that we don't know what we're talking about. You've insulted a great many people by refering to our opinions as the 'herd mentality' and that 'we don't know how to play a sorcerer'.
So really, to back up those pretty wild accusations, please give us a 15 point buy Pathfinder Sorcerer, with suitable wealth-by-level, spells and skills as you consider 'played correctly', otherwise you're just trolling.
We can list the areas where the Wizard has a higher score and where the Sorcerer has a higher score. That's not pointless. It can be quite informative.
You have yet to set down what you count as better, which I asked for a long time ago. If we can't agree on better it will just be another pointless debate.
That is not concrete but it is a start. Now I realize what makes one class valuable is different to different people. You might like UMD if the cleric goes down a lot, but in my games, the cleric hardly ever goes down so UMD is not as important.
I think we have to list what matters and why it matters.
PS: I do like UMD and sorcerers, even more than I like wizards. I just disagree with how much credit you are giving them.
|
|
We can list the areas where the Wizard has a higher score and where the Sorcerer has a higher score. That's not pointless. It can be quite informative.
You have yet to set down what you count as better, which I asked for a long time ago. If we can't agree on better it will just be another pointless debate.
No, not really. Both need exactly ONE score each. Both are SAD classes so all other stats can be placed however the player wants. You can make a charismatic wizard...or a smart sorcerer.
|
|
Is there some kind of error on the forums? It says there are new posts to this thread since wraithstrike's but I can't see them.Given the rage flying around I'd say the Mods are carefully screening comments before allowing them to be viewed.
And no, Lilith, you're the one standing there shouting that nobody is optimizing their Sorcerer correctly and that we don't know what we're talking about. You've insulted a great many people by refering to our opinions as the 'herd mentality' and that 'we don't know how to play a sorcerer'.
So really, to back up those pretty wild accusations, please give us a 15 point buy Pathfinder Sorcerer, with suitable wealth-by-level, spells and skills as you consider 'played correctly', otherwise you're just trolling.
I rarely see a well optimized Sorcerer. That's a fact. The min-max boards on WotC used to argue that the Sorcerer was a spell canon whose job was just to spam invocations. As ludicrous as that sounds, I assure you that I'm not making it up.
Others argue that the Sorcerer must max Knowledge (arcana), despite the fact that he gets little benefit from it.
Others argue that the Sorcerer should take spells which are single purpose (Black Tentacles, for example).
Umm what the hell are you talking about?!? NOBODY in the CO board at ANY given time suggested that the sorcerer be used to spam evocation spells. Nor should they take single purpose spell over multi-purpose spells. However, black tentacle is NOT a single purpose spell...the fact that you think so shows me that you don't know the magic system and by extension the sorcerer as well as you think you do.
As for maxing arcana...it wasn't that the sorcerer got much from it, it was that the party need it from SOMEBODY and that somebody is generally the party arcanist...i.e. a sorcerer. The wizard doesn't get much out of knoweldge arcana either. It isn't used for learning new spells or crafting an item...it is used for the benefit of the party. So if your arguing that the sorcerer is more powerful because they can be more selfish...well no...just no.
|
|
Cold Napalm, you are being very hostile. It's a f@#@ing -game-. Get a grip. At no point did I say "Cold Napalm is just showing the herd mentality". At -no- point did I say that. But you've certainly not hesitated to make very pointed attacks and insults directed at me. And I've been turning the other cheek, because getting in a flame fest over a f@#@ing -game- on the Internet with some stranger is f@#@ing retarded. But I'm getting really tired of turning the other cheek here.
Umm...who's the one getting hostile here? And needa grip? Black tentacle restricts movement, restricts casting (hell just actions in general), does DoT...thats not one thing. You think it does one thing...it really doesn't which is why it is one of the must have spells...as either a sorcerer or a wizard. You fail to realize this and yet you proclaim that you know the sorcerer oh so well and we all know squat. You are not turning the other cheek, your constantly attacking everyone...repeatedly...and this small little slip you made shows me the reason you haven't backed up anything you say even asked repeatedly to is because you CAN'T. Because you really don't know how the system works. Or care to as you houserule things so your pet class rules. You really wanna turn the other cheek, you shouldn't have called anyone who disagrees with as playing stupid or having ah erd mentality.
But ultimately, Lilith, you haven't answered any of our questions yet, you've just thrown more arguments at us without any proof of your claims validity. You've spent most of the thread telling the people who have had different opinions that they don't know what they are talking about, but have not given any real credible proof of why this is so, just more opinions and statements that have done nothing but bog this thread down into a conflict.
I'm sorry, I am going to have to ask that if you are not going to post a Sorcerer that can support your opinions, after all you've said, then perhaps you should really not be posting anymore in this thead.
|
|
You're desperately looking for another stupid Internet argument about a f*~~ing game.
I'm not interested.If someone else here would like to ask me what I mean by calling "Black Tentacles" a single purpose spell, I've got no problem answering a question courteously asked. But, as far as I'm concerned, Cold Napalm no longer exists on this message board.
Fine by me...I'll take that as a surrender on your part then. I'll still point out all the assasnine things you say...but I suppose it'll go a lot smoother if you just don't reply back to me (you know, your willing to turn the other cheek and all).
I will add my POW, for what it's worth.
Sorcerers and Wizards play in a different way, IMHO: being Arcane spells the most powerful tools in the game (which they both share), the Wizard's strength is the ability to potentially know each and every one spell (time, gold AND spell availability permitted* - which is a thing that sometimes is not taken in consideration on forums); the Sorcerer's strength is the ability to potentially spam the same spell over and over (if the spell is effective on the enemy), but his weakness (or his 'role', if you allow me) is that he has to carefully ponder which spells he knows from the beginning (although some spells CAN be swapped later). Perhaps if there should be an 'Extra Spells' feat (which could be taken only by spontaneous casters), this would be less of a pain. But we are still speaking of RAW, so I would not add suggestions for a 'better Sorcerer'.
*My ongoing campaign on Eberron (where I play a Cl/Wz/MystTheurge) is on a timeline (we are cursed and will be dead soon if not completing our quest), and being on Sarlona (the 'Psionic' continent of the campaign) the access to spells is VERY limited - basically, I've played for more than 4 levels only with my +2 known spells/level and a selection of Fire spells (the only ones accessible in the Dromite village where we stayed a little).
The trick is, some spells are powerful - but spammed continuously are terrific. Enervation and Energy Drain come as an example.
(please note, we are speaking of the case the victim is not protected somehow against Negative Levels - see my previous sentence regarding 'spells which are effective against on the enemy')
Enervation can be a terrific spell, if used correctly. 1d4 Negative Levels without Save can screw an enemy, but 3d4 (or more) Negative Levels can kill it outright. The fact is, it is very unlikely for a Wizard to prepare this spell so many times in a day, since he is supposed to be 'well-rounded' against many kind of encounters. With this in mind, Enervation for a Wizard is an OK spell at best.
A Sorcerer who knows Enervation ? MDK. He has simply to cast it once to see if it effective. Is it not? All right, let's try something else (damned Death Ward...). Is it effective ? Death of one enemy. He can use his 4th-level slots - AND his 5th-level slots, 6th-level slots, and so on, and so on, if necessary - to simply kill somebody due to Negative Levels overflow.
This is the main difference on the effectiveness of spells between a Sorcerer and a Wizard (again, IMHO). Now, which class is 'most powerful' (we are speaking of raw power here, not role) ? Well, I have to admit (for how much I love Sorcerers, their glamour and the effectiveness of their new Bloodlines concept) that the Wizard is still a step ahead. BUT if the Wizard's selection of spells for the day is wrong for the kind of encounters he is facing, he is screwed (not all Wizards have the luxury of time of leaving some slots open to prepare them in a second occasion during the day - a 'ready-to-be-filled' slot is useless in the heat of a battle). OTOH, if the Sorcerer's selection of spells is not a bit varied (for example, a Sorcerer who decides ONLY to learn Fire-damaging spells (!!!)), he is totally screwed when facing opponents for which his spells are not effective. A tematic choice is one thing, a one-trick pony is... meh (this could be the same for Wizards who decide ONLY to put monotheme spells - Fire-damaging spells for example - on their spellbook, but I admit this is a little less common).
Just my 2c.
If you think about it, a sorcerer's limited spell selection may work to the player's advantage. Fewer spells means that the sorcerer should have a deep understanding of all their spells & be able to think of less obvious applications for their spells.
Necessity is the mother of invention, you mean? This is true, a canny Sorcerer will be forced to think up new and 'out of the box' ways of using those limited spells, wherein a Wizard could be more likely to simply use a completely different spell altogether, which is ironic considering that the more intelligent Wizard should be the one figuring out the different applications for his spells (ahahaha).
Be it simply casting Fireball at the stalactmites hanging from the roof of a cave to blow them loose and rain destruction down upon the rogue-classed Goblins or using Cone of Cold to harden a flow of lava in place of a Wall of Stone/Iron, the Sorcerer can truly shine by taking their limited spell selection and going MacGuyver with them.
No, Lilith, this is what's getting up in every one's grill, is that you've challenged, and quite aggressively so, most of the other posters and then when asked to provide proof you retort with a 'No you!'.
You have asserted that the Sorcerer is more powerful and that we don't know what we're doing. So how about calming down, showing us one of your sorcerers so that the other posters can see where you're coming from. Sitting there and saying 'No, you go first' doesn't do you any favours and instead paints you as antagonistic and combative, neither of which helps in a debate.
In an attempt to salvage a deteriorating thread (and might I suggest some of you pause from your posting now and again to get some sleep, you're getting testy), let me rephrase the original intent with some specific questions, since it should be abundantly obvious that people will continue to disagree with each other about the merits of a sorcerer vs. a wizard. Let's look at some classic situations, and give our opinions as to which they would prefer to have with their party for each situation. I would be surprised if anyone can honestly say sorcerer or wizard straight across the board.
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.
3. The party must defend a small village from assault by a horde of humanoids, including some tougher guys and minor spellcasters. They have some limited time to prepare.
4. The party is about to enter a huge and unexplored tomb complex, where unknown dangers await. The expedition will likely take several days at least and require sleeping inside the complex.
5. The party must penetrate an ancient sage's abandoned sanctum sanctorum. It is not only laden with traps, but contains a wide variety of puzzles and intellectual challenges that will test the parties ingenuity and knowledge.
My answers would be:
1. Sorcerer - with no time to prepare, his ability to access full repertoire of spells on the fly is vital.
2. Wizard - given the time to prepare, and the likelihood of overcoming magical effects, magical traps, and finally magical combat. I like the wizard's larger spell list and ability to cast higher level spells at half the PC experience levels.
3. I could go either way. The time to prepare may give the edge to the wizard with his larger spell list, but on the other hand, it's hard to plan perfectly for any combat situation, and the sorcerer is hard to beat in terms of raw spellpower downrange.
4. Again, I could go either way. I like the wizard's larger spell list for the variety of challenges involved, but I like the sorcerer's ability to use all spells on the fly for the inevitable times the party gets jumped in the dark or attacked while sleeping.
5. Wizard - the larger numbers of skills and knowledges outclass the sorcerer in this situation.
YMMV. I'm interested to see the different opinions others will, I have no doubt, bring to the table.
Abandon smurf!
*glares at the tiny blue humanoid, wondering wether or not he should punt it, stomp on it or eat it, sighs in defeat and resolves to hug it instead*
Ah, in regards to Brian Bachman, sorry. I guess I got a concussion beating my head against the Wall of Iron, sorry.
Ah, points, what were they again... ah
1)Yes, definitely the advantage to the Sorcerer there, the Sorcerer's (and to a lesser extent, the Bard) ability to choose their ammunition depending upon the fight allows them to be quite flexible with what spells they can bring to bear on a surprise enemy.
2) Eh, I'd actually call that a toss-up. Sorcerer can, with her higher charisma score and Bluff skill, potentially place herself within the Arch-Mage's home as a servant or apprentice and potentially bypass the Arch-Mage's defenses even as she begins to recruit from within his own servants allies for the Party. On the other hand, during the time that Sorcerer was working her wiles on the fortress from the Inside, the Wizard could be researching or creating spells that would enable the party to bypass most of the defenses without setting off alarms, and again due to the ability to gain higher level spells earlier than a Sorcerer, has a slight edge in that regard.
Of course, nothing is stopping anyone from swapping that around and having a suitably disguised/buffed Wizard trying to become an apprentice and the Sorcerer using a Combination of Summon Monster and Planar Binding to bring some Celestial/Infernal allies or solutions to the table.
3)In that case .... Sorcerer. It's a toss up, but Sorcerer by a nose. While the Sorcerer probably wouldn't have access to the Utility Spells like Wall of Stone, Mud to Stone, Stone to Mud, Stone Shape or the like, She would likely have access to Illusions that could make an enemy force think they were facing seasoned soldiers rather than desperate farmers. Send the Major Image to the places where the grunts are and have the PCs engage the big guns while the Farmers use slings and spears against the grunts, who are duking it out, and probably failing their saves miserably, against the 'Soldiers' they are fighting via Major Image, although this will tie up the Sorcerer to make sure the Images 'react' to being struck and/or fought.
A Wizard could do this just as well, but again the flexibility of the Sorcerer's spell-per-encounter gives the Sorcerer the edge, meaning that she could drop down the Major Image, wait until the force engages and then drop a nasty AoE like Back Tentacles or Stinking Cloud or even ye olde Fireball to lower the number of enemies. A Wizard might be able to provide some static defenses to the Village, but a Sorcerer would be able to move around and keep changing things up to keep the enemy on their toes and unbalanced enough for the Farmers to win through.
4&5) In these situations, a Wizard would win out over the Sorcerer, but specifically under situation 5 would he truly shine. The Unknown challenges Sorcerers as their spell selection is limited and their best asset to change this, items like Wands, Scrolls and Staves, can be quite costly and might leave the party stranded between two death-traps if squandered. A Wizard, on the other hand, has access to a broader selection of knowledge and the eccletic spell collection to deal with weird situations.
Furthermore, the Wizard's ability to craft magical items enables him to create items that can allow the party to rest in safety, such as a wondrous item that allows the party to camp out in a camoflaged Secure Shelter, so on and so forth, while a Sorcerer would have had to have burned twice the gold to simply buy the Wondrous Item in the first place. Again, it's a case of time that tilts the odds in favour of a Wizard who is prepared to take the time and the gold to prepare several contingencies.
1. The party is jumped while traveling through the dark woods by unknown assailants. They are surprised and have no time to prepare before being thrown instantly into combat.
2. The party is preparing to infiltrate the stronghold of the Great and Evil Magus Magoo, an arcane spellcaster of great renown and proficiency.
3. The party must defend a small village from assault by a horde of humanoids, including some tougher guys and minor spellcasters. They have some limited time to prepare.
4. The party is about to enter a huge and unexplored tomb complex, where unknown dangers await. The expedition will likely take several days at least and require sleeping inside the complex.
5. The party must penetrate an ancient sage's abandoned sanctum sanctorum. It is not only laden with traps, but contains a wide variety of puzzles and intellectual challenges that will test the parties ingenuity and knowledge.
My answers would be much like yours except in case 3. I do think it's a close call, but the way people play wizards at my table he would do a better job against a greater number of weaker enemies. A sorcerer can do this, however it's more rare. Just my 2 cents :)
First and foremost it depends upon the party. Some will mesh better with a sorcerer than others. Also not all sorcerers are created alike, at least not decently done ones. So some parties will mesh better with a particular sorcerer than a wizard perhaps, but even then might not mesh better with most sorcerers over a (more generic) wizard.
Good point about composition of the rest of the party. For the purpose of this exercise let's assume a "classic" party of 4 in which the sorcerer/wizard is the only arcane spellcaster, supplemented by a melee heavy fighter, a rogue optimized for stealth and detection, and a cleric optimized to heal and buff.